new york – OpenSecrets Newshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news
Breaking news, original reporting, and investigative journalism *on money in politics from the Center for Responsive PoliticsWed, 19 Dec 2018 02:30:02 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8Capital Eye Opener, Jan. 3: Campaign Cash is the Question for Brown, How the Cliff Bill Got Fat, and Morehttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/capital-eye-opener-jan-3/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/capital-eye-opener-jan-3/#respondThu, 03 Jan 2013 10:47:00 +0000Will Scott Brown jump back into the frying pan so soon after his bruising, and incredibly costly, 2012 race? A big factor is whether he thinks he can raise the money for a third race in four years. Also, how the fiscal cliff legislation came to include tax credits benefiting many large corporations, and why New Jersey and New York matter to lawmakers like John Boehner.

After Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) announced he’d run in a special election for the Senate seat that would be vacated if John Kerry (D) is confirmed as Secretary of State, Brown couldn’t resist a swipe at the longtime House member.

“I’ll tell you what — they’re making it awfully tempting,” said Brown, a Republican, on a radio talk show Wednesday when asked if he’d throw his hat in the ring once again. “You got Ed Markey. Does he even live here any more?”

Brown, of course, just came off a bruising loss to newly elected Democratic Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren, who will be sworn in today. He held the seat just two years, having won a 2010 special election to replace Ted Kennedy (D), who died of brain cancer.

Brown has broadly hinted he would try again. But it’s a heavy lift: The contest with Warren cost the candidates an almost unbelievable $81 million combined, making it the most expensive congressional race in the country. Raising buckets of money again so soon after losing, 54 to 46 percent, could be daunting for Brown and his party.

On the other hand, Markey, who has represented Malden since 1976, has often run unopposed and has never had to spend more than $1.3 million in a race. He’s untested in a serious statewide contest. But it appears he’d be the favored candidate to get heavy party backing.

As for what’s up with the residency question, Markey has two homes, one in Chevy Chase, Md., and one in Malden, where he grew up. His wife, a doctor, worked at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., and is now a consultant in the area.

Brown isn’t immune to the same accusation: He has a home in the D.C. area, is a member of the Maryland National Guard, and his wife also works in the city.

— Viveca Novak

FISCAL CLIFF WINNERS: When the “fiscal cliff” bill finally passed the House it included far more than just a deal on taxes and a brief respite before the next partisan fight. It also gifted corporate America with $76 billion in tax credits, many to special interest groups and big corporations like General Electric.

How did all this get into the legislation? As the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney documented last night, persistent lobbying that cleverly played the long game. While many tax lobbyists considered the “fiscal cliff” legislation a political mess, Carney explains, others saw an opportunity to fold in a big chunk of legislation developed this summer that held many of the tax credits. Leading the charge, Carney writes, were a bipartisan team of former-senators-turned-lobbyists: John Breaux (D-La.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who were hired by GE, Citigroup and liquor maker Diageo (the fiscal cliff legislation includes tax provisions benefiting rum producers in Puerto Rico).

BOEHNER’S DECISION ON SANDY MAY COST CAMPAIGN CASH: House Speaker John Boehner‘s (R-Ohio) decision earlier this week to hold off voting on Hurricane Sandy relief money for New York and New Jersey, apparently made to avoid a vote to spend more money immediately after the fiscal cliff battle, wasn’t expected to please lawmakers from those states. But they reacted with a very specific threat, encouraging campaign donors to cut off contributions to House Republicans.

Despite the stereotype about the liberal northeast, New Jersey and New York are major sources of campaign cash for Republicans, and even Boehner himself. Yesterday, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who is known to be combative and quite partisan himself, went on cable networks to decry Boehner’s decision and urged his constituents in New York to withhold campaign donations to the House speaker.

“These Republicans have no problem finding New York when they’re out raising millions of dollars. They’re in New York all the time filling their pockets with money from New Yorkers,” King said on FOX News Wednesday, according to Politico. “I’m saying right now, anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their minds. Because what they did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans. It was an absolute disgrace.”

New York State may be testing the waters. Recently, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) proposed new regulations that would require 501(c)(4) nonprofits — named for a section of the IRS Tax Code — to disclose their budgets and the donors behind their millions of dollars if they spend at least $10,000 on politics in the state.

Currently, the “social welfare” groups do not have to disclose the sources of their funding, even if they are politically active. They can maintain this status with the IRS as long as less than 50 percent of their money is spent on politics.

In the 2012 election cycle, outside spending groups dropped $1.3 billion with Crossroads GPS and its super PAC affiliate, American Crossroads, accounting for about $175 million. Nondisclosing groups, most of them 501(c)(4)s, spent more than $300 million of the total, including the conservative American Action Network, which spent about $11.7 million, and liberal-leaning American Bridge 21st Century, which laid out $339,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos,”‘ co-founded of Instagram Kevin Systrome wrote in a statement. “We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.”

The policy asserts that organizations can pay Instagram for user images without the app user’s permission, notification or compensation. The images could be used for advertising, and unless an account is deleted before the policy takes effect, there is no opt-out option. It also says information collected can be shared with Facebook, which has a similar policy.

NEW SENATOR, NEW LEADERSHIP PAC: Although she has yet to be sworn in, Sen.-elect Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) has formed a leadership PAC called the Nebraska Sandhills PAC, according to a report from Politico.

The Center for Responsive Politics has 2012 election cycle records on 422 active leadership PACs — or committees formed by lawmakers to help raise money for their colleagues, which often boosts their credibility and appreciation. This election cycle, leadership PACs made more than $37 million worth of contributions to federal candidates, with about 62 percent going to Republicans as of mid-October.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/capital-eye-opener-dec-19/feed/0Capital Eye Opener, August 3: Polling about Super PACS, NYC Preps for Outside Spending and Morehttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/08/capital-eye-opener-august-3/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/08/capital-eye-opener-august-3/#respondFri, 03 Aug 2012 10:45:43 +0000"Super PAC" may be a household term to readers of this blog, but most Americans don't know what one is. NYC anticipates local super PAC activity and adopts stronger disclosure regs, and the DCCC says "sorry" to Sheldon Adelson.

POLL: AMERICANS ILL-INFORMED ABOUT SUPER PACS: About $5.8 billion will be spent on this years elections, yet a new Pew/Washington Postpoll indicates that most Americans know little about some of the major groups spending that money.

Forty percent of those surveyed correctly identified a super PAC as a group that accepts unlimited political donations, according to the poll. Super PACs, which resulted from the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and other court rulings, have received media coverage in outlets ranging from the National Review to CNN to the Colbert Report. But the poll suggests that most Americans do not know what super PACs are, let alone their impact on elections.

The poll also points to a broader lack of exposure to information on campaign finance. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said that they had heard nothing at all about campaign spending. Republicans were the most likely to have had some exposure to campaign spending news, with just 32 percent of them saying that had heard nothing. Respondents who identified as independent were the least likely to say they were well informed on this subject; only 20 percent said that they had heard a lot about it, compared to 28 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats. (The margin of error for the poll was 3.6 percent; however, it was more than 6 percent for the party affiliation results).

NEW YORK PREPS FOR LOCAL SUPER PACS: Outside political spending is primarily a federal issue, driven by super PACs and political nonprofits that purchase hundreds of millions of dollars in ad time to influence presidential, congressional and Senate races. However, state and local politics are not immune to big money groups and unlimited donations; emboldened by a recent Supreme Court decision that struck down Montana’s state level ban on corporate donations, super PACs may increasingly set their sights on local elections.

That development is being anticipated by New York regulators, who are beefing up political disclosure requirements, according to the New York Times. The city plans to mandate the public reporting of spending and fundraising by independent political committees and post the details online, as well as information about campaign advertisements and the groups’ supporters.

Outside spending has already made an impact on metro politics. Independent political groups spent $2.6 million on the San Francisco mayoral race in 2011, and the Real Estate Board of New York raised half-a-million dollars to protect New York City Council members from liberal and labor-backed challengers. According to the Times, groups including the United Federation of Teachers and recently-formed pro-lesbian super PAC LPAC are open to bringing outside money to bear on New York politics.

The DCCC made waves in July when it issued press releases attacking Republican congressional candidates across the country for funding their campaigns with “Chinese prostitution money.” The claim was based on a lawsuit filed against Adelson, in which a former employee alleged that the casino magnate allowed prostitution at one of his resorts in Macau.

Adelson, who along with his wife Miriam has given $36 million to outside spending groups this election cycle, did not take kindly to the accusation. He threatened to sue the DCCC for defamation; yesterday, the Committee issued its “sincere apology” for making what it called “untrue and unfair” statements.

Chinese prostitution aside, the Adelsons are a major political force and the largest bankroller of super PACs. After pouring millions into the super PAC Winning Our Future to support former GOP candidate Newt Gingrich in the presidential primary, the Adelsons switched their allegiance to presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Their $10 million in contributions to pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future in June made the Adelsons the group’s biggest supporters.

Got a tip or news link to pass along? We want to hear from you! Email us at press@crp.org.